POL To Protect Abortion, Women Must Give Up The Right To Vote

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Especially topical given the mudslinging over The God Emperor's latest U.S. Supreme Court nomination, and the motivations for the libtards (especially the feminazis) opposing it, seeing as a Manichean/existential battle.

http://judgybitch.com/2018/09/10/to-protect-abortion-women-must-give-up-the-right-to-vote/

To protect abortion, women must give up the right to vote
SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 BY JANET BLOOMFIELD (AKA JUDGYBITCH) 202 COMMENTS

"The political left continues their hysterics over Justice Kavanaugh, whom they quite rightly claim will gut Roe vs. Wade, leaving abortion illegal and therefore largely inaccessible across a large swathe of the United States. It amuses me somewhat that the exact same people shrieking that making abortion illegal won’t stop abortion – all it will do it make women choose illegal, dangerous abortion are the same ones shrieking that making guns illegal will prevent gun crime and keep as all so much safer.

Hmmmm. Men will abide by gun laws, but women absolutely will not abide by abortion laws? By what mechanism, I wonder, are women thought to be more criminal? A failure of character? Intelligence? Understanding? Personality? So many questions ….

Let’s pause for a moment and go back in time to consider why women are allowed to vote at all. Heck, let’s think about why anyone is allowed to vote? The fundamental justification for universal suffrage is that if the state can demand the ultimate sacrifice from citizens, then citizens have a right to determine who the state will be by democratic election.

When the United States of America was founded, it was clear that men would be required to continue to offer their lives to protect liberty and ward off tyranny. Women were not required to armor up and hit the cannon lines, because women had other uses to the state, and in 1920, when women won the right to suffrage, those uses were still in effect.

With no effective birth control, and no abortion, pregnancy and childbirth were more or less mandatory for the overwhelming majority of women, some of whom died in the process. Let’s not succumb to the usual feminist hysterics here where virtually all women were killed in childbirth and abortion is the only thing that saved the poor wimmins from torturous death. Nonsense. From the New England Journal of Medicine, the top ten causes of death in 1900 don’t even mention childbirth or associated complications.

historicaldeaths-615.jpg


Yes, childbirth was a dangerous thing for some women. Some women died. Most survived and so did the children. I’ll make the same point here that maternal feminists made in 1920 when arguing for women’s right to vote: women must engage in the arduous, and potentially injurious work of producing citizens for the state, and thus have a right to determine what happens to those citizens. The majority of women did not agree with the maternal feminists, understanding that having your child die and dying yourself are two completely different things, but the feminists of the 1920’s were every inch the bellowing harridans of today, and they carried the day, particularly after one thirsty suffragette tripped in a drunken stupor and got herself killed. The precious, precious Smirnoff martyr of women’s rights. Let’s have a moment of silence for the poor, wasted dear.

Fast forward to the age of Roe vs Wade and childbirth is not mandatory for any woman. Women barely produce the citizens needed to replace the current population, never mind increases. According to data collected directly from licensed clinics, 60, 069, 971 abortions have been performed since Roe vs. Wade.

60 million.

Let’s keep in mind that these are mostly poor children, and mostly black or brown. Planned Parenthood specifically targets the black and Hispanic communities for population reduction. The children of the poor, no matter what the culture, have always been the expendable class aka cannon fodder, and by children, we are of course talking mostly about the male ones. I’m not suggesting that using the poor as target practice is a good thing or in any way justified. I’m simply pointing out the reality. Even during the Vietnam War, black soldiers bore the brunt, by population, of combat deaths.



Before abortion and birth control, women were more or less obliged to produce citizens for the state. There were no reasonable alternatives. And men were required to die in combat for the state. Again, there were no reasonable alternatives. On that basis, women were afforded the right to vote.

In 2018, men continue to have an obligation to be available for combat service, at the direction of the state. There is no reasonable way to avoid this obligation for the majority of men. But women have no obligation to the state of any kind. They cannot be drafted during war time (pregnancy will always exclude them) and they cannot be forced to produce citizens during peace time because they will never vote for politicians who will deprive women of the right to abortion. Thus women have the right to vote without any corresponding responsibilities. Men do not.

Until Donald J. Trump, that is.

Trump is about to upend women’s free ride at the ballot box.

If women want to retain the right to abort the future citizens of the United States, they will have to surrender the right to vote, which is predicated on the mandatory production of those citizens. If women wish to retain the right to vote, then they will have to accept that the right to vote comes with a responsibility, as all rights do.

A right without a responsibility is called a privilege, and that is precisely what feminism argues for: women are entitled to privileges without obligations of any kind, while men must shoulder the responsibility in order to exercise the right, whatever that happens to be.

We have had a century of women voting without any correlating responsibility. In a mere one hundred years, women voters are on the brink of destroying the very cultures that permitted them the illusion of freedom. 60 million lives have already been lost to the tragedy of women voting. Women will sacrifice their own children. Do you imagine for one second they will not sacrifice the lives of grown men?

President Trump and Justice Kavanaugh are about to give women a fundamental choice: you may kill your own children, or kill grown men.

Pick one.

Choose wisely.

Lots of love,

JB"
 
“In 2018, men continue to have an obligation to be available for combat service, at the direction of the state. There is no reasonable way to avoid this obligation for the majority of men.“

Uh? Do we still have a draft?
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
We still have Draft REGISTRATION … ask at your Post Office, they will explain the details.

Be interesting if mommy or daddy has to go register daughter in a few months...
 

Jerry799

Veteran Member
“In 2018, men continue to have an obligation to be available for combat service, at the direction of the state. There is no reasonable way to avoid this obligation for the majority of men.“

Uh? Do we still have a draft?

And another Marxist Progressive troll is lurking on TimeBomb. Actually the Selective Service requirement is still in place and young men are required (under penalty of law) to register when they turn 18. It is not doing more than that because the country is able to fill it's requirement for men in the military through a volunteer army. Should the requirements for volunteers in the Army not meet their needs, it only takes a vote of Congress to reimpose the drafting of young American men into the US Military.
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
Did ya miss the thread where the Army didn't make recruiting goals recently?

And no one here is talking about how much FORSCOM is yelling about the ash and trash they CAN get...
 

spiralbinder

Agrarian Separatist
It's actually closer to 100 million abortions in the US as some states like CA don't track abortion for political reasons, and roughly 60 million of those abortions were white babies. On a population percentage basis there were more black abortions than white but going by sheer numbers it's clearly white genocide.
 

marymonde

Veteran Member
I’m just now comprehending how giving women the right to vote was the beginning of splitting the family apart. Next, WW2, taking women out of the home to work, thus doubling the tax base. It’s always about money. Then came birth control, then Federally sanctioned murder of our future in the womb. Is it any wonder we see such vicious, vicious women dominating the headlines? Mankind (I refuse to use peoplekind) is headed for something no one can even imagine. The pathetic feminists will have no knight in shining armour to defend or protect them when tshtf.
 

Cardinal

Chickministrator
_______________
How about everyone must pass a rigorous test before being allowed to vote. One that will gauge their knowledge of history, both American and European, economics and government?
That way the ignorant of both sexes get weeded out.
 

Millwright

Knuckle Dragger
_______________
How about everyone must pass a rigorous test before being allowed to vote. One that will gauge their knowledge of history, both American and European, economics and government?
That way the ignorant of both sexes get weeded out.

Or be property owners?
 

Cardinal

Chickministrator
_______________
Or be property owners?


There are stupid property owners out there. I would rather know that people casting votes are educated and intelligent.
And how do you define "property"?
I own a car.
Did you mean "land owners"?
 

Millwright

Knuckle Dragger
_______________
There are stupid property owners out there. I would rather know that people casting votes are educated and intelligent.
And how do you define "property"?
I own a car.
Did you mean "land owners"?

Yes, property being real estate, in my mind. :D

That was a requirement in the past, IIRC.


Having some skin in the game would drastically change the voting landscape, especially at the state and local level.
 

Cardinal

Chickministrator
_______________
I would still prefer folks pass a rigorous test to vote.


Also in days or yore, slaves and women didn't pay taxes. I'll trade voting for being tax free.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Good basic idea, but...

Yes, property being real estate, in my mind. :D

That was a requirement in the past, IIRC.


Having some skin in the game would drastically change the voting landscape, especially at the state and local level.

Privately-owned land needs to commonly be allodial again, and not seizable for most purposes, first. I'd also add these ideas:
1) transplants to a state need to live there for 18 years before voting (prevents Californication in most cases),
2) to vote you put in a troy ounce of gold that you get back if you solve a quadratic equation and vote, failure = no vote and lose your gold,
3) no homos, people on welfare, gov't employees (except DoD?), morons, Muslims, frivorcers, birthers of bastards, admitted socialists, criminals convicted of stuff that was criminal before 1850 or so, etc., should ever be able to vote. Also (got this idea from Israeli Likud party platform), immigrants should not be able to vote for nonlocal (e.g., Federal and probably statewide) offices as a lifetime restriction.
 
Last edited:

sunny225

Membership Revoked
There are some interesting ideas in this thread for sure.
What about those folks who REFUSE to vote in this corrupt system? Are y'all for forcing them to do so anyway?
 
“And another Marxist Progressive troll is lurking on TimeBomb.”

Excuse me?

I’m just asking a question rather that looking it up.
Last encounter I had with SS was when I registered, the year they had the lottery but didn’t send the letters. IIRC, I probably would have come home in a box, and I wouldn’t be asking silly questions now. Since then, having no kids or close family members with kids, I gave it no further thought.
 

ArisenCarcass

Veteran Member
This part annoyed me, because it is factually wrong:

"Even during the Vietnam War, black soldiers bore the brunt, by population, of combat deaths."

There were 58220 total deaths in Nam. 7243 blacks killed, 49830 whites killed. Simple division shows blacks took 12.44% of the deaths, whites took 85.59%. Both are in line with demographics of the day.

Statistics source:
https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics


Had "Mcnamera's morons" of project 100000 not been tried, this wouldn't have been the case (it was a program to get primarily uneducated blacks into useful positions in the military....a horrible failure due to statistical differences in deaths).

Besides that, I mostly agree with the article.
To meddle in the game of nations and culture, one must be Machiavellian:
Women no longer serve their purpose (to be fruitful) and the nation is suffering for it, so punishment is in order.
For that matter, most "men" are no longer men, and most should also not vote.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
This part annoyed me, because it is factually wrong:

"Even during the Vietnam War, black soldiers bore the brunt, by population, of combat deaths."

There were 58220 total deaths in Nam. 7243 blacks killed, 49830 whites killed. Simple division shows blacks took 12.44% of the deaths, whites took 85.59%. Both are in line with demographics of the day.

Statistics source:
https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics


Had "Mcnamera's morons" of project 100000 not been tried, this wouldn't have been the case (it was a program to get primarily uneducated blacks into useful positions in the military....a horrible failure due to statistical differences in deaths).

Besides that, I mostly agree with the article.
To meddle in the game of nations and culture, one must be Machiavellian:
Women no longer serve their purpose (to be fruitful) and the nation is suffering for it, so punishment is in order.
For that matter, most "men" are no longer men, and most should also not vote.

Most American men are no longer subject to conscription in wartime? I must have missed that law being passed.
I certainly have never been notified that I was taken out of Selective Service's files.

So, no, the original point stands.
 

Knoxville's Joker

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I’m just now comprehending how giving women the right to vote was the beginning of splitting the family apart. Next, WW2, taking women out of the home to work, thus doubling the tax base. It’s always about money. Then came birth control, then Federally sanctioned murder of our future in the womb. Is it any wonder we see such vicious, vicious women dominating the headlines? Mankind (I refuse to use peoplekind) is headed for something no one can even imagine. The pathetic feminists will have no knight in shining armour to defend or protect them when tshtf.

Never thought of connecting that. Thanks for sharing
 

7th trump

Membership Revoked
Or be property owners?

Property ownership should be the only requirement to be able to vote. I believe it may have been that way years gone by.
Reason being is well...look at the majority of who gets to vote today. Renters, illegals, welfare recipients who have no real vetted interest in the future of America.
Ask yourself does any renting welfare recipient care about their future? Taxes, taxes and more taxes?
Of course they don't care. Why should they care? As long as they vote in someone whos gonna promise increases in the cost of living for welfare recipients and make it easy to get on a career of welfare. Why work, why care? Why care about morals, honesty and making a better life for yourself.
Why not vote for socialism/communism that promises free everything? Under that type of government there is no future for America as we know it. The welfare recipients (for a lack of a better description) will vote for democrats who give the hard earned taxes away of those who worked for a better life.

I say make voting only privileged to those who own land. After all it is they who will most likely have an interest in preserving freedom and a future as the founding fathers saw fit.
You work to own land as it doesnt come free...its a life lesson. And with owning land comes benefits of voting that should preserve what the founding fathers fought for.
 

ioujc

MARANTHA!! Even so, come LORD JESUS!!!
In view of these comments, isn't it interesting that it is women who lead the movement to get rid of abortion and maintain the sanctity of life in our families. In fact, they are generally the only ones in a family that take any responsibility for the moral character of the children.

I would be in favor of only land owners voting, as I have always owned land and most of the time it was in my name only as I was the sole wage earner for the family.....and I just happen to be>>>>>>>a woman.
 

ambereyes

Veteran Member
In view of these comments, isn't it interesting that it is women who lead the movement to get rid of abortion and maintain the sanctity of life in our families. In fact, they are generally the only ones in a family that take any responsibility for the moral character of the children.

I would be in favor of only land owners voting, as I have always owned land and most of the time it was in my name only as I was the sole wage earner for the family.....and I just happen to be>>>>>>>a woman.

I agree, that is how I raised my children alone since I was widowed when they were very young. Also a land owner, that land was purchased by me years after my husbands death. So I am the only owner and a woman.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Not a complete position, if you think about it...

Property ownership should be the only requirement to be able to vote. I believe it may have been that way years gone by.
Reason being is well...look at the majority of who gets to vote today. Renters, illegals, welfare recipients who have no real vetted interest in the future of America.
Ask yourself does any renting welfare recipient care about their future? Taxes, taxes and more taxes?
Of course they don't care. Why should they care? As long as they vote in someone whos gonna promise increases in the cost of living for welfare recipients and make it easy to get on a career of welfare. Why work, why care? Why care about morals, honesty and making a better life for yourself.
Why not vote for socialism/communism that promises free everything? Under that type of government there is no future for America as we know it. The welfare recipients (for a lack of a better description) will vote for democrats who give the hard earned taxes away of those who worked for a better life.

I say make voting only privileged to those who own land. After all it is they who will most likely have an interest in preserving freedom and a future as the founding fathers saw fit.
You work to own land as it doesnt come free...its a life lesson. And with owning land comes benefits of voting that should preserve what the founding fathers fought for.

How about requiring people being American citizens to vote in American elections? (Commiecrat-run cities are actually openly trying to end run such a requirement in multiple locales now, after effectively fighting it for many years by opposing having to show I.D. to vote.)

And, think of the legal obligation to fight in the U.S. military in wartime that being subject to Selective Service brings. Your quite valid point, that one should have skin in the game to deserve a voice, arguably applies with full force to national security issues. Should a group that cannot be forced to contribute anything to a total war have a say in how that war is fought, or even entered into in the first place? (Remember that women are net tax consumers over their lives, so taxes some of them pay part of the time aren't a valid counterargument.) I say not.

And, since much or most of what the Fedgov is Constitutionally (e.g., legally) restricted to concerning itself with is national security (and most Federal elected offices deal with that at least some), that just excluded women from legitimately having a role in national politics, save in support of say, their husbands and fathers.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Where do you get THAT idea, ioujc?

In view of these comments, isn't it interesting that it is women who lead the movement to get rid of abortion and maintain the sanctity of life in our families. In fact, they are generally the only ones in a family that take any responsibility for the moral character of the children.

I don't see that commonly being the case at all.
 

Cardinal

Chickministrator
_______________
Property ownership should be the only requirement to be able to vote. I believe it may have been that way years gone by.
Reason being is well...look at the majority of who gets to vote today. Renters, illegals, welfare recipients who have no real vetted interest in the future of America.
Ask yourself does any renting welfare recipient care about their future? Taxes, taxes and more taxes?
Of course they don't care. Why should they care? As long as they vote in someone whos gonna promise increases in the cost of living for welfare recipients and make it easy to get on a career of welfare. Why work, why care? Why care about morals, honesty and making a better life for yourself.
Why not vote for socialism/communism that promises free everything? Under that type of government there is no future for America as we know it. The welfare recipients (for a lack of a better description) will vote for democrats who give the hard earned taxes away of those who worked for a better life.

I say make voting only privileged to those who own land. After all it is they who will most likely have an interest in preserving freedom and a future as the founding fathers saw fit.
You work to own land as it doesnt come free...its a life lesson. And with owning land comes benefits of voting that should preserve what the founding fathers fought for.

OK. I rent. I am not illegal nor am I on welfare. I pay taxes. I have always paid taxes. I have always rented. In this economy it made more sense to rent, in case I had to move to another state for a job, than to be a home owner.
I still have skin in the game.
Now, if you wish to exempt non-voters from being taxed, and leave that burden for the real estate owners, fine.
 

ambereyes

Veteran Member
Just a thought about selective service and it being only men, how about men stop starting wars? Seems like it's men decisions that lead us to conflicts and war. Now I'm not saying all wars have not been executed for cause but not many.
 

7th trump

Membership Revoked
OK. I rent. I am not illegal nor am I on welfare. I pay taxes. I have always paid taxes. I have always rented. In this economy it made more sense to rent, in case I had to move to another state for a job, than to be a home owner.
I still have skin in the game.
Now, if you wish to exempt non-voters from being taxed, and leave that burden for the real estate owners, fine.
Paying taxes has nothing to do with anything relating to voting.
You pay taxes because you participate in social security where you get benefits like being able to retire at 65 in return.
Land taxes go to the city, so you cant claim that either as a right to vote
 

7th trump

Membership Revoked
How about requiring people being American citizens to vote in American elections? (Commiecrat-run cities are actually openly trying to end run such a requirement in multiple locales now, after effectively fighting it for many years by opposing having to show I.D. to vote.)

And, think of the legal obligation to fight in the U.S. military in wartime that being subject to Selective Service brings. Your quite valid point, that one should have skin in the game to deserve a voice, arguably applies with full force to national security issues. Should a group that cannot be forced to contribute anything to a total war have a say in how that war is fought, or even entered into in the first place? (Remember that women are net tax consumers over their lives, so taxes some of them pay part of the time aren't a valid counterargument.) I say not.

And, since much or most of what the Fedgov is Constitutionally (e.g., legally) restricted to concerning itself with is national security (and most Federal elected offices deal with that at least some), that just excluded women from legitimately having a role in national politics, save in support of say, their husbands and fathers.

Free
Selective service, like paying federal taxes, is the result of participating in social security.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Good idea, that...

Just a thought about selective service and it being only men, how about men stop starting wars? Seems like it's men decisions that lead us to conflicts and war. Now I'm not saying all wars have not been executed for cause but not many.

International law against aggressive war should work to stop it*. Intranational laws against murder, assault, robbery, burglary, fraud, etc., would likely stop those too. We should ask the government to pass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression#The_Convention_for_the_Definition_of_Aggression shows international sanctions as far back as 1268.
 

Cardinal

Chickministrator
_______________
Paying taxes has nothing to do with anything relating to voting.
You pay taxes because you participate in social security where you get benefits like being able to retire at 65 in return.
Land taxes go to the city, so you cant claim that either as a right to vote

Voting let's you have a say in what happens with those taxes. So if I'm gonna have to pay, I want a say.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Hardly...

Free
Selective service, like paying federal taxes, is the result of participating in social security.

From Liberalpedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States

"Conscription in the United States, commonly known as the draft, has been employed by the federal government of the United States in five conflicts: the American Revolution [1775 - 1781], the American Civil War [1861-1865], World War I [1917 - 1918], World War II [1941 - 1945, and the Cold War [1947 - 1991] (including both the Korean War [1950- 1953] and the Vietnam War)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

"The original Social Security Act was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935"

Anyway, I am aware of neither women being excluded from Social Security benefits from being free of conscription risk, nor of people who opted out of Social Security (many gov't or railroad employees in the past, some clergy now, men so poor they never had to pay into it/could get SocSec benefits) being freed of draft risk.

Try again.
 

7th trump

Membership Revoked
Voting let's you have a say in what happens with those taxes. So if I'm gonna have to pay, I want a say.
I don't believe anyone has a say. 14th amendment says "US citizens" (if you understand jurisdiction) cannot question the national debt.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
So, Card, tell your husband what you think, and if he thinks you have a valid point, he'll keep it in mind when he votes on behalf of your entire household.
You know, the way your Congressman is supposed to vote in a representative republic, which we supposedly have now.

Anyway, never forget that women as a group don't pay taxes, but are net tax consumers. Arguably, under the most lenient interpretation of your reasoning, they should only have the vote during years they are net taxpayers. More fair IMO would be only for those who have "broken even" WRT paying taxes during their lives [if accidentally, this is close to the system men as a group vote under], and losing the franchise once they become tax parasites. The only problem with that is how barren/child-neglecting feminist careerist shrikes would be empowered politically, when the fate of the country in part rests upon them having less influence, not more.

http://judgybitch.com/2018/04/27/only-men-pay-tax/

tax-2.jpg
 
Last edited:

7th trump

Membership Revoked
From Liberalpedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States

"Conscription in the United States, commonly known as the draft, has been employed by the federal government of the United States in five conflicts: the American Revolution [1775 - 1781], the American Civil War [1861-1865], World War I [1917 - 1918], World War II [1941 - 1945, and the Cold War [1947 - 1991] (including both the Korean War [1950- 1953] and the Vietnam War)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

"The original Social Security Act was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935"

Anyway, I am aware of neither women being excluded from Social Security benefits from being free of conscription risk, nor of people who opted out of Social Security (many gov't or railroad employees in the past, some clergy now, men so poor they never had to pay into it/could get SocSec benefits) being freed of draft risk.

Try again.

Those conscripts you posted were during conflicts.
When you sign up for a ssn one of the mandatory duties of SS is to sign up for selective service upon the age of 18.
Theres a difference between conscription during wartime and selective service during peace time.
 
Top